Page 11 of 11

Posted: 12:17 07 Feb 2011
by esmer
IJN wrote: Apparently, the PST money is behind Lombard and in front of Mastpoint in the pecking order IF everything should go tits up.

That could only be with the agreement of Mastpoint and Sir Roy, they had the second and third charge.

Posted: 12:30 07 Feb 2011
by Ian Newell
Well that's the deal, so it must have been agreed by both parties.

Posted: 12:30 07 Feb 2011
by Argylegames
X Isle wrote: I've come into this late, i'm very surprised but i'm at work so can't do a 12 pager. I'm sorry therefore if this quick question has already been covered.

I have a standing order for the (original) trust, I set it up because PASOTI required it for membership at the time AND I wished to help youth development. Now I don't have PASOTI membership and the trust does not support youth development i'm questioning the need, especially in light of this news.

As I personally believe it's time to stop giving the NWO our money, time to starve them out and start again........

.......is my standing order helping to prop up the failed regime?.


PAST&DT asked everybody to stop their standing orders when the hotel was sold as they had no need at the time for further income. I stopped mine at that time. You should have retained your pasoti membership unless you dropped one name and started another.

Posted: 12:39 07 Feb 2011
by Laughter My Ploy
I would like to applaud a brave brave decision by the Trustees...it must have been a vexing complex and truly awful decision to have to make

I would like to believe they made it for all the right reasons with all the right safeguards in place

It brings into sharp focus the problems of volunteering or entering into any kind of service for the public good...its never ever going to please everyone and faced with very real legal sanctions it must be a daunting prospect

Posted: 16:56 07 Feb 2011
by Argylegames
Laughter My Ploy wrote: It brings into sharp focus the problems of volunteering or entering into any kind of service for the public good...its never ever going to please everyone and faced with very real legal sanctions it must be a daunting prospect


As someone who knows very well the problems of which you speak, I have to disagree with you.

The trustees should have kept the money for PAFC2011's youth setup.

I would not have put a penny into the hands of the current board - especially STAPLEDWALLET at whose feet I put 99.9999999% of the blame.

BBC headline.

Posted: 18:11 07 Feb 2011
by Shane Harris

Posted: 13:56 10 Feb 2011
by cheshiregreen

Posted: 21:11 10 Feb 2011
by philly
Laughter My Ploy wrote: I would like to applaud a brave brave decision by the Trustees...it must have been a vexing complex and truly awful decision to have to make

I would like to believe they made it for all the right reasons with all the right safeguards in place

It brings into sharp focus the problems of volunteering or entering into any kind of service for the public good...its never ever going to please everyone and faced with very real legal sanctions it must be a daunting prospect

I, along with thousands of others, have been deeply upset with the state our club is currently in. I lost my Dad just over a year ago and I am just thankfull that he isn't around to see this debarcle. He put a lot of money, time and commitment into the Argyle Hotel and the youth set-up over the years and he, along with Ken Jones, would have only had Argyle's best interest at heart at all times. I just hope that this was the right decision and Im sure they wouldn't have gone into it with their eyes closed.

Posted: 07:31 11 Feb 2011
by Ray the Aviator

Posted: 08:09 11 Feb 2011
by A J Bayram
Ray The Aviator wrote: This dont look good . . .

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Lo ... ticle.html


Let's hope that the money came from a "Trading Account" and not the Charity Account.

Posted: 09:04 11 Feb 2011
by Mark_Colling
a j bayram wrote:
Ray The Aviator wrote: This dont look good . . .

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Lo ... ticle.html


Let's hope that the money came from a "Trading Account" and not the Charity Account.

Since the club changed its arrangements for the youth team and the Trust was forced to sell the hostel in 2008, there has been no trading and besides which, it is a charity so it doesn't really matter which account the money came out of.

As for the Charity Commission investigating, it was always going to from the moment questions about it were raised in The Guardian; if everything is as watertight as people would have us believe then they will ask a few questions, get satisfactory answers and say "that's OK then" - and I really hope that is the case.

However, the starting point with football clubs is that they are a bad investment and this particular one has well known problems, they are going to start their enquiries for a position of skepticism.

I would have thought that the key questions would be the decsion making process (including in particular Satpleton's role), the strength of the security and whether the interest rate reflects the risk. (I have just had a quick look at the Ocean Finance website and their typical, variable rate is 17.9% APR. Most people will recieve a lower rate than this. Rates range from 11.9% to 29.9% APR.)